[gnasher]

How would the auction go after 1♠-2♣;2♠?

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Feb 24 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

How would the auction go after 1♠-2♣;2♠?

Depends, of course. For me, 2♦ by Opener would have been available for many hands as a catch-all, such that 2♠ clearly shows a sixth spade. Therefore, Responder just raises to 3♠ to agree trumps.

This allows Opener to serious 3NT if he wants, or to courtesy cue if that seems right to him. I'd imagine, for the sake of argument, a serious 3NT call. If this happens, the auction ends up the same -- 4♦ cue by Responder and 4♥ cue by Opener. The differences are that 4♦ bypassed 4♣, and therefore denied two of the top three clubs, 4♥ is actually Last Train, and Opener got to show serious interest. With those changes, the onus is clearly on North.

Had South opted, in my sequence, to shoot low with a 4♣ cue, any cooperation by North would mean that the ball is in South's court, clearly.

The decision as to which way to go by South at his first call is a partnership matter, as the situation is close at that point, similar to at the actual critical point. But, there's a wee bit more space to unwind any chosen course.

[hanp]

Ken your double dummy bidding is flawless as usual.

It is convenient to know that partner's 6-card suit is so good when you raise on Kx. Not knowing my partner's hand I might rebid my 7-card suit. My partner would surely raise and it could be tough to get to 6S.

[hotShot]

Since 2/1 is a mystery to me, my contribution will be a questions.

Should not a jump over a GF be at least invitational to slam?

Now if that is true, than North has failed to show his ♣K and his ♥A.
And perhaps 3♠ is a slide overbid from South.

North has 2 keycards, an extra K and shortage in an unbid suit. What more would I need to bid 5♦ as exclusion KC (if available) over partners slam invitation?


I assume that 2♦ and 2♥ would have been a GF too.
So North has shown a hand with less than 3♠, less than 5♥ and ♣length>=♦length.
South could/should understand North bidding as 2434 that includes A or K in ♦. I don't think that South has a chance to guess a 7 card ♣ length and ♦ shortage.
So I think South has no move left after partners sign off 4♠.

[kenrexford]

hanp, on Feb 24 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

Ken your double dummy bidding is flawless as usual.

It is convenient to know that partner's 6-card suit is so good when you raise on Kx. Not knowing my partner's hand I might rebid my 7-card suit. My partner would surely raise and it could be tough to get to 6S.

I never seem to get comments like this.

If my approach has a problem, it is in occasionally playing in a major when 3NT or perhaps even a minor contract is superior. This is because I use what I consider to be a practical rule, namely that I will in 2/1 sequences have as a rule that an agreed major will be the strain for game, and secondarily that I will always agree a major if a fit is known.

This has downsides, of course. But, it seems disingenuous to fault a particular sequence on the one hand as taking away ability to find the best strain but then to comment that my always-agree-the-major rule is "double dummy bidding." Please pick one objection and stick with it.

Using this rule, this is not remotely double-dummy. Opener showed six spades. Responder has a fit. The rule is to show the fit. The fact that on thjis hand it helps, apparently, is not double-dummy. On the hands where it does not help, but I raise anyway, will you call that intentional double-dummy self-sabotage? Please.

The way I bid, for clubs to come back into focus, Responder or opener must make a choice-of-slams call at some point. This might not be ideal to you, which is fine. It works OK for me. I actually pre-tailor structure for that contingency. For example, if Opener has denied a void in clubs, or Responder has promised first-round club control, then 5♣ would be RKCB, but with the King and Queen of clubs shown instead of the King and Queen of spades (presumably because the other is known, in an example auction).

In this sequence, my approach is really bad, in one sense. After Responder bids 2♣ and then 3♠, Opener cannot know whether the club suit is even Kx or nine-card in length. That's obviously not ideal. But, my rules end up with that unfortunate aspect.

But, double dummy? That's a comment that is based on a combination of ignorance of my real-world approach (perhaps because of a shock that I would bid as stupidly as that, in your possible opinion) and an assessment of my position as dishonest, apparently, which is offensive.

I'd much rather that, with knowledge of what I really do, you call my rules idiotic and absurd than to essentially call me dishonest.

[jjbrr]

peachy, on Feb 23 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Feb 23 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

I don't think this 3♠ is not common or standard. I would argue quite the opposite.

Not sure what you argue for or against. This 3S is common in any 2/1 style. It is standard in 2/1 Hardy style.

Sorry. I'll take the negatives out of this statement, since two of them cancel out, to make it easier for people to understand.

What I meant to say is, "I think 3♠ is both common and standard. I would argue quite the opposite (of what Ken said in the post before mine)."

Better?

[hanp]

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

hanp, on Feb 24 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

Ken your double dummy bidding is flawless as usual.

It is convenient to know that partner's 6-card suit is so good when you raise on Kx. Not knowing my partner's hand I might rebid my 7-card suit. My partner would surely raise and it could be tough to get to 6S.

I never seem to get comments like this.

On the contrary, you often get comments like this!

This thread used to be about an interesting judgement problem but you once again turned it into an uninteresting discussion of Ken Rexford's agreements.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Feb 24 2010, 10:20 AM, said:

This thread used to be about an interesting judgement problem but you once again turned it into an uninteresting discussion of Ken Rexford's agreements.

Amen!

I was even starting to question my judgment. Cascade had a good point that south is the one who knows his values are in the right minor, I originally blamed north but that at least caused me to reconsider and now I'm much less sure. Overall it's a tough hand, you want to bid slam in your second best fit with a combined 28 points, a little of which is wasted too.

[hanp]

I actually thought my other sentence was much better.

[straube]

jdonn, on Feb 24 2010, 10:32 AM, said:

hanp, on Feb 24 2010, 10:20 AM, said:

This thread used to be about an interesting judgement problem but you once again turned it into an uninteresting discussion of Ken Rexford's agreements.

Amen!

I was even starting to question my judgment. Cascade had a good point that south is the one who knows his values are in the right minor, I originally blamed north but that at least caused me to reconsider and now I'm much less sure. Overall it's a tough hand, you want to bid slam in your second best fit with a combined 28 points, a little of which is wasted too.

But 1S-2C frequently doesn't even show a suit. Partner could be 3-4-3-3 or 2-3-4-4 for example. If the auction had been 1S-2D, 3S then one could as easily make the argument that responder's bid improved the Qx of diamond holding for responder's more-likely-to-be 5-card suit and that opener additionally has controls in hearts and clubs.

After 1S-2C, 3S opener ought to be concerned that she overbid her suit to get across her values.

I think the key question of the hand is whether the partnership knows of a double fit. It doesn't.

Just curious, but what is the standard meaning for 1S-2C, 2S-4C? Most play 1S-2C, 2S-4S as good trump and good clubs and not much else.

A practical bid for this auction after 1S-2C, 2S would be 4D. That would tend to show 3-4-1-5 but Kx of spades is pretty good support.

[quiddity]

I think that after the 2C bid, the AJ should be an indication to South to keep the bidding low. Showing a top honor in partner's 2/1 suit might be more important than showing general strength. And it is not clear that spades are a better spot than clubs.

After 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♣; 3♥-3♠ it seems to me that opener is better placed. She knows the club suit is real, and she knows the spade support is real.

edit: to be honest, though, I'm not sure how the auction should continue from that point.

[kenrexford]

hanp, on Feb 24 2010, 10:20 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

hanp, on Feb 24 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

Ken your double dummy bidding is flawless as usual.

It is convenient to know that partner's 6-card suit is so good when you raise on Kx. Not knowing my partner's hand I might rebid my 7-card suit. My partner would surely raise and it could be tough to get to 6S.

I never seem to get comments like this.

On the contrary, you often get comments like this!

This thread used to be about an interesting judgement problem but you once again turned it into an uninteresting discussion of Ken Rexford's agreements.

My response to you specifically is getting closer and closer to an F-bomb.

1. My initial response was an analysis, attempted in good faith with as much detail as possible, of the judgment problem, resulting in a conclusion that partnership style and method theory was critical and unknown. This had nothing to do with my ideas.

2. Someone else (not you) asked how the bidding would go with 2♠ as the rebid. I answered for my part how the bidding would go for me after the 2♠ rebid.

I, therefore, did nothing to turn a discussion in any direction. Rather, I offered a response to a question asked by another person in this thread. The discussion was already turned.

If you find my answer to that question not interesting, good for you. Don't read it. Except, you did. Sucked in, like a fool. You even found it interesting enough to comment upon, with an absurdly nonsensical response that showed your ignorance and illustrated rudeness.

And, you can't stand it but must respond again. Like a moth to the light, I guess.

Now, as a compliment, I loved your double entendre.

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on Feb 23 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

South should move. South has the unexpected values in partner's suit. From North's perspective swap the ♣A for the ♦A in partner's hand and we are content at 4♠.

even if you did that seems like slam is on a finese at worse, well I missed the club ruff, dunno how likelly it is.

[gnasher]

I asked how it would go after 1♠-2♣;2♠ because there seemed to be a lot of criticism of the 3♠ bid without much explanation of how a 2♠ rebid would improve things. Since Ken was one of the people who criticised 3♠, I can't complain about his answering the question. Still, I'd be more interested to learn how mainstream 2/1 bidders think they would cope.

3♠ as played by Han has two distinct advantages: it shows a good suit, and it suggests that we may have a slam. The 2♠ bid recommended by others doesn't do either of these.

I can imagine the auction starting
  1♠-2♣
  2♠-3♣
  4♣
At this stage, responder doesn't know that opener has all those points, responder doesn't know about opener's suit quality, responder may not know about the sixth spade, and opener doesn't know about responder's suitability for spades. It seems hard to sort all of this out when we're already at the four-level.

[quiddity]

Han also suggested the immediate raise of 3C to 4C in that auction - I don't like it. If opener takes the slow route I think she should bid 3H to get more information about responder's hand.

[PhantomSac]

I mean obv there are different approaches, and when you need to get to 6S in the 6-2 rather than 6C in the 7-2 then approaches that emphasize/focus spades early on are going to work better.

Whenever you see 2 hands you can have an approach that works better to get to the right spot early on, because you always know which issues are relevant and which need the focus earlier on.

I don't like 3S because your suit is not really that good. Sure it's great when partner has Kx of spades, but gl getting back to clubs when responder has xx spades and KQ of clubs, or just when responder has a stiff sapde and has to guess whether to bid 3N or not or whatever.

On this hand we are trying to get to a slam in spades where we need diamonds cuebid, so 1S 2C 3S is going to work well. 1S 2C 2S 3S is also going to work well. Even 1S 2C 2S 3C 3H 3S might work well. 1S 2C 2S 3C 4C has focused on the wrong things and is going to work poorly.

To me jumping to 3S on a hand that is good but not that great (inducing a lot of guesswork), and a suit that is good but not great (inducing a lot of guesswork) just uses up too much room when level and strain are too much in doubt.